I welcome the Committee back to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Before anyone asks the question, the two microphone recording devices are not spies or anything else; they are in fact Hansard picking up voices from that end of the Committee Room, so they are perfectly legitimate.
Schedule

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(5A) Provision under subsection (4)(a) must secure that an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section will not be required to be taken consecutively and may be taken in blocks of one day at a time.”
This amendment would allow flexibility in the parental bereavement leave arrangements.
Amendment 3, in the schedule, page 2, line 27, leave out “56 days” and insert “52 weeks”.
This amendment would extend the period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 52 weeks.
Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 2, line 27, leave out “56 days” and insert “26 weeks”.
This amendment would extend the minimum period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 26 weeks.

Laura Pidcock: I know that all this comes, as we mentioned last week, from a place of anxiety of wanting to make sure the Bill passes with ease. I have to politely disagree: I am not sure that this would be a massive shock to business. When I was a manager of a team, albeit within a charity, I still had to make sure that there was enough money in to pay the wages. We very much had to operate like a business.
I hope the new legislation never has to be used, but where does the entitlement will still be two weeks’ bereavement leave. That is not a considerable time in people’s working lives. Using the time flexibly would have positives for the employer because members of staff, if they were unable to use the entitlement, would often have to call in sick because they were so down and were unable to come in to work.

Antoinette Sandbach: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I extend my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for introducing the Bill. This is my first opportunity to speak on it. I know it has so much support from across the House.
My amendment 20 would extend the period in which parental bereavement leave must be taken from at least 56 days to 26 weeks. That is an important extension, for many of the reasons that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about. There are particular days and events that happen, such as inquests, and it may be very important for a parent to be able to attend an inquest relating to their child.
As people will know, I speak from personal experience. The inquests relating to my own son were carried out very quickly—in fact, within 24 hours of his death—but I did not get the results for more than two months. That was the time at which I found out the cause of death. It took two months for me to get that information, which effectively flagged it up as a streptococcal infection, whereas it had been assumed that it had been sudden infant death syndrome. That pointed very strongly to the actions of the midwives, who had not picked it up. I then had to raise issues with the NHS hospital trust in relation to how it had reacted to various telephone calls and things that I had made prior to my son dying. That flexibility, and extending that period, is really important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has already praised Elliot’s Footprint, Bliss, Together for Short Lives, the National Bereavement Alliance and the Rainbow Trust. They all make incredibly important points, as did the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. It simply cannot be predicted how events will play out, and therefore that flexibility over when the leave may be taken is incredibly important. I am conscious that many parents qualify for bereavement leave through statutory parental leave, but for those who do not, this is a really important protection.
Grief comes in waves, and we do not know when it will hit us. I had a child who was also bereaved, because she had lost her brother. Support for a sibling is there in  other legislation, where parents are entitled to ask for flexible working or to take time off. Again, the flexibility of knowing that leave can be more than a day and that people can devote their attention and time to coping with grief suffered by other family members, rather than their own grief, is really important. More than that, it helps fathers, who may find going back to work a comfort.
Sometimes, being able to go back to one’s job quite quickly gives people security and routine, which perhaps allows them to cope with grief in a different way at a slightly later stage. It also means that parents can stagger arrangements, so that mum can be at home at one point and dad at others. The amendment would introduce a degree of flexibility, which, to an extent, covers issues that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Durham, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran both spoke about. This is an important amendment that would add to the legislation, and I urge my hon. Friends and the Minister to consider it because of the extension of time that it would bring to parents.

David Linden: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I warmly commend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for proposing this Private Member’s Bill. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colchester, who proposed a similar Bill in the last Parliament. I am glad to see that the Bill has finally got Government support. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment to his post—we have had an exchange in the Chamber only this afternoon.
I rise to speak to amendments 3 and 10 in the name of myself and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I also support amendments 11 and 20 in the names of the hon. Members for North West Durham and for Eddisbury. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran set out, we in the SNP believe that this is fundamentally a good Bill. We welcome it, although we feel it could be strengthened to go even further.
Before speaking to the amendment, I pay tribute to Shaun Walsh of Together for Short Lives and Priyanka Patel of CLIC Sargent, who were both kind enough to brief me about the Bill and other issues, particularly those relating to children’s palliative care. I have been fortunate to visit CLIC Sargent’s social work team at Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, in my constituency.
Broadly, my interest in the Bill stems from two reasons. First, I have a longstanding interest in children’s palliative care policy. I declare an interest, as my mother is a children’s palliative carer for Icare Scotland. My second reason stems from my personal experience of becoming a father. Originally, my wife Roslyn and I were led to believe that having children would be very difficult, if it was possible at all. In February 2015, after some blood tests, we were told that Roslyn was in fact 19 weeks pregnant, and that due to her Type I diabetes it would be an incredibly complex pregnancy. Essentially, every time my wife injected insulin, which is required to keep her alive, our baby grew bigger; and as a result, so did his chances of dying. A couple of weeks later we were  called in to Southern General Hospital and told that, due to the increasing size of our son, we had to brace ourselves for the possibility of a stillbirth. It was the hardest conversation we have ever had with anybody in the medical profession and as a married couple; it felt as though a train had hit us.
In the end, our son Isaac was born, almost two months premature and significantly overweight. He spent the first two weeks of his life in intensive care at Southern General Hospital, before moving on to special baby care. The doctors, nurses and staff at Southern General could not have been more loving and supportive. I know that all of us in this room have nothing but admiration and respect for the national health service staff who look after us. Many Members of this Committee have already shared their own deeply personal experiences of losing a child and I am incredibly mindful of the fact that our wee boy pulled through. For that I am nothing but thankful to God. It was during the darker times of being told to prepare for a stillbirth, and when Isaac was whisked away to intensive care after his birth without us, that we were left in shock and contemplating what losing a child could be like, on every level possible—be that practical or emotional. It is for that reason that we have come together on the Committee to ensure that a good Bill becomes an even better law.
Amendment 3, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, would extend the period within which bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 52 weeks. The rationale behind the amendment is to give more flexibility to parents who lose a child. Through my fundraising work with children’s hospices across Scotland, I have had the opportunity to visit Robin House in Balloch and meet parents whose children have a life-shortening or life-limiting condition. I have also spoken to families who have experienced the loss of a child. One of the clear messages and asks they have of us as policy makers and legislators is to allow more flexibility in when they can take bereavement leave.
My friend, Maria McGill, the chief executive of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland, often speaks of the importance of marking a child’s birthday and other such anniversaries, which is a significant part of the grieving process. If the Committee agrees to the amendment, parents would have more flexibility in the first year, rather than the first month or two, following their child’s death. In the grand scheme of things it would not cause a lot of difficulty to employers, but it would make a massive difference to families who have experienced bereavement.
The amendments in this group seek to make a good Bill and a better law. I ask the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, and all right hon. and hon. Members, to support amendment 3 in particular.

Laura Pidcock: I know we are not talking about new clause 2, because that is gone and it would be terrible, but last week there were assurances following the Taylor review, which is relevant to the amendments we are talking about now, that the Taylor review would respond to a lot of the concerns contained in new clause 2. Now there is a suggestion that there will be a consultation on this group of amendments. If the consultation comes back and says that, yes, flexibility is needed and it needs to be over six months rather than two months, will the Minister give us assurances now that the Government will accept those consultation findings?

Order. To clarify, if the Minister will forgive me, I think he means on Report rather than at Third Reading.

Order. If the consultation is launched on Third Reading, it is not possible for its outcome to be considered before the completion of the Bill’s consideration. I suspect that the Minister means the Bill’s passage through both Houses.

A wee while ago, though.

Kevin Hollinrake: The point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East is well made. What employer would ever refuse to allow a parent time off for their child’s funeral? Clearly, most employers will; we know that through the research we have done. Nevertheless, we accept that we need to do more, because we accept that some employers are not reasonable and not compassionate.
I have great sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. Clearly, in law all employees are allowed a day one right to take reasonable leave in whatever circumstance. These measures in the Bill are in addition to that basic right. We have said a number of times in this Committee that this is a signal to employers; it does not give all the answers for employers. People’s needs are different in such circumstances.
This is such a personal issue that we expect employers to be compassionate and considerate. We expect them to give the bereaved parents of a child time off for the funeral. Putting that into legislation would be difficult at this point, because of the fragility of private Member’s Bills. I politely ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment and, at this point, we will leave it at two weeks.

Order. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is intervening on the hon. Member for North West Durham.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12,in schedule, page2,line35, at end insert
“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.
Amendment 14, in schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert
“, or in full time education, or both”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 who are in full time education.
Amendment 19, in schedule, page 2,line35, at end insert
“, or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.
Amendment 7, in schedule, page9, line 18, leave out from “means” to end and insert
“a son or daughter of any age”.
This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement pay, to a son or daughter of any age.
Amendment 13,in schedule, page9, line 18, at end insert
“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.
Amendment 15, in schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert
“, or in full time education, or both”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those over the age of 18 who are in full time education.
Amendment 18,in schedule, page9,line18, at end insert
“, or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”.
This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement pay, to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

Andrew Griffiths: I understand the hon. Lady’s premise. I understand that, looking from the outside, it is easy to make bespoke cases for bespoke situations. All those are valid and have strong reasoning behind them, but I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester: we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Unfortunately, we have to draw a line in the sand.
I agree that resisting amendments 12 and 13 is not a decision to be taken lightly. I understand the genuine and heartfelt feelings on both sides. My intention and that of the Government is not to disregard the parents of a child with a lifelong disability or to ignore their needs, but to ensure that the Bill stays practical, focused and deliverable.
On amendments 14 and 15, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for his tireless efforts in keeping this important issue firmly on the radar and acknowledge the courage with which he speaks. I continue to be impressed by the tenacity of hon. Members in all parts of the House in sharing their personal experiences. It would be remiss of me not also to highlight the efforts of the all-party parliamentary group for children who need palliative care, which other hon. Members have mentioned. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow East feels very passionately about this and does a great deal of work in this area. I also pay tribute to organisations such as Sands, the Lullaby Trust, Together for Short Lives, the Rainbow Trust and the National Bereavement Alliance in championing the needs of bereaved parents and taking forward important decisions on this issue.
With regard to the definition of child, establishing a cut-off for the purpose of the Bill has been very difficult. We have all deliberated long and hard about it. Emotions and personal experiences clearly come into play. There have been many discussions on the issue, and I am grateful to everybody for making their points about the number that is chosen with such passion and clarity. We recognise the devastation that the loss of a child of any age causes, and understand that for some, any maximum age is undesirable. I understand that there will be many people watching this debate who have suffered the loss of a child over 18 who will feel the pain with huge sensitivity as we discuss this matter, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said, it is essential that the legislation makes it immediately clear to both the parent and their employer what the eligibility criteria are for taking parental bereavement leave and pay.
We are all working towards the same aim, I believe, which is to make matters clear and make it easy for parents for take leave from work to grieve following the loss of a child. Making the change proposed in amendments   14 and 15 could undermine that intention. Not only would broadening the definition in that way make eligibility less clear to parents, but it would run the risk in some cases of being no better off than we are now. It is hard to comprehend bereaved parents being challenged by their employer and having to negotiate with them for time off at such a difficult time; equally, we could place employers in the very difficult position of having to make this challenge as a result of a lack of clarity. We need this to be understandable on all sides. We need to ensure that we minimise the risk of challenge and confusion over who is, and who is not, able to take parental leave and pay.
I therefore agree that setting the definition of a child as someone under the age of 18 is logical for the provisions of this Bill. As I said, we are not disregarding the needs of parents with dependent children over 18, but we must ensure that the focus of the Bill is clear. I believe that the definition as drafted goes far enough in setting a minimum level of protection that employers that must adhere to when engaging with bereaved employees.
Mention has been made of ACAS and the support that it offers to employers managing bereavement in the workplace. I think there is also more to be achieved through further work with ACAS to explore the best ways of promoting the message that all employers should act sympathetically in respect of requests for leave for any bereavement. ACAS has already established guidance on managing bereavement in the workplace and has supporting content on its website; it also has a number of resources relating to parental rights. Officials from my Department recently met representatives of ACAS to discuss the guidance and the work that needs to be done to promote it further. Should the Bill receive Royal Assent, we will work further with ACAS to ensure that its content fully reflects the new provisions. The Government will consider how best we can work with ACAS to help raise awareness of the new rights and ensure that existing guidance on bereavement is updated, and that all employers feel confident in offering the appropriate support to their employees in all situations involving bereavement. Although death is something we all have to encounter in some way during the course of our lives, the Bill will provide support for those encountering death in the most challenging situation as a result of the loss of a child.
We do not for one moment underestimate the devastation that the loss of a child at any age can cause, but the Government are committed to supporting the Bill and so I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments and engage with ACAS and officials in my Department to establish better practices for all employers in supporting all bereaved parents.

Amendment proposed: 12, in the schedule,page2,line35, at end  insert
“, or a person with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency over the age of 18”.—(Laura Pidcock.)
This amendment would extend the definition of “child”, for the purposes of parental bereavement leave, to those over the age of 18 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26,in the schedule, page4, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—
“
In this Chapter—
(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and
(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”
This amendment extends the provisions about parental bereavement leave to bereaved parents of stillborn children.
Amendment 8,in the schedule, page4,line30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would give the Secretary of State a duty, rather than a power, to extend parental bereavement leave to cases where a child is stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.
Amendment 27,in the schedule, page4,line37, leave out “, 80EE”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.
Amendment 28,in the schedule, page9,line18, at end insert
“(see also section 171ZZ15 for the application of this Part in relation to stillbirths)”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Amendment 29, in the schedule,page10, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—
“
In this Part—
(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and
(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”
This amendment extends the provisions about statutory parental bereavement pay to bereaved parents of stillborn children.
Amendment 9, in the schedule,page10,line41, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would give the Secretary of State a duty, rather than a power, to extend parental bereavement pay to cases where a child is stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.
Amendment 30,in the schedule, page11, leave out line 3
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

Yes, it is perfectly in order to speak more than once.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5,in schedule, page6, leave out lines 15 to 21.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 4.

Andrew Griffiths: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he also must understand that there are costs involved with all these things. While in an ideal world—funds permitting—we would wish to extend all these kinds of benefits to allow greater access, we have to cut our cloth. While I understand his point, the qualifying periods are long established for many of these benefits. I hope he understands that.
In my capacity as the Minister responsible for small business, I keep on getting speeches that say I am the small business Minister. I told the Secretary of State for Wales that he was better qualified for that title than I, but he did not see the joke either. Because I talk to organisations such as the FSB on a daily basis, and to small and medium-sized enterprises up and down the country, I am particularly aware and conscious of, and attuned to, the effects that these amendments may have on small business. I think everybody in the room will be attuned to those too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised an important point: that bereavement can be difficult for employers to deal with, especially those who have not had to manage it before. That is even more acutely felt in small businesses. Where there is a small team of two or three people, if that happens it can be devastating on the whole workforce. As a consequence, complicating employment law by making these amendments could make it harder for employers to deal with child bereavement in the workplace by making the provisions inconsistent with other paid leave entitlements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury asked on Second Reading what steps had been taken to ensure that employers were ready for this impending legislation. As with all measures, we will communicate the changes in good time, consulting the relevant stakeholders where appropriate, and provide as much support and guidance as possible. Officials from my Department have already met with representatives from ACAS to discuss how Government can better support employers when dealing with employees who are struggling with the loss of a child. ACAS already has established guidance and supporting content on its website on managing bereavement in the workplace. It also has a number of resources relating to parental rights. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will work with ACAS to ensure that its content fully reflects the new provisions and will consider how to best promote the updated guidance.
First and foremost, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has just mentioned that the policy is designed to support grieving parents. Mirroring existing legislation can also be of benefit to the employee. That is an important point. An inconsistent approach across family-related leave and pay entitlements could result in confusion over eligibility. It is essential to make it clear, to both the employee and their employer, who is entitled to take parental leave and receive parental bereavement pay. That clarity is essential, helping to avoid disagreements and challenges over eligibility at a sensitive and raw time. Otherwise, they could lead to a rise in employment tribunal claims—a situation that we all want to avoid, particularly at such a difficult time for the parents. Keeping family leave entitlements consistent will go some way to avoiding that confusion and conflict.
Ultimately, as my hon. Friend and I have said, the aim of the Bill is to make life a little easier for parents who have lost a child and are in the grieving process. We believe that providing them with a minimum of two weeks’ leave does that, which is why the leave entitlement in the Bill is a day-one right. It is about providing parents with time away from work if that is what is needed. Again, it is important to recognise that the Bill does not prevent employers from providing their own enhanced bereavement support for employees if they are able to do so. I believe the argument for withdrawal of the amendment has been well made, and I urge the hon. Member for Glasgow East to withdraw it.

Amendments made: 28,in the schedule, page9,line18, at end insert
‘(see also section 171ZZ15 for the application of this Part in relation to stillbirths)’
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Amendment 29,in the schedule, page10, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—
‘171ZZ15 Application in relation to stillbirths
In this Part—
(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and
(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.’
This amendment extends the provisions about statutory parental bereavement pay to bereaved parents of stillborn children.